Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preening/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 March 2021 [1].

---

Preening

Nominator(s): MeegsC (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

This article is about preening, a behaviour that all birds use to keep their feathers in good shape. It's a behaviour that most of us have probably witnessed at some point, as birds spend quite a bit of time each day preening — up to 15% of their day, in some species. I've enjoyed researching this one; though I've been birding nearly my whole life, even I didn't know some of this before I worked on the article! This started as a WP:BIRD collaboration in 2017, but unfortunately fizzled out pretty quickly. I've been working on it in fits and starts since then, and think it's finally finished. MeegsC (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Images appear to be freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 23:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Aa77zz

• Which variety of English spelling is used in this article? There is color and colour, behavior and behaviour etc. The article is mostly in British English but there are behavior, neighbors and neighboring rather than behaviour, neighbours and neighbouring.
• "barbules" should be linked at first mention in the lead.
  • Done; I also added links in the caption, and in the first instance following the lede.
• The picture showing the structure of a feather is poor. The article cited at the bottom of the picture, Sullivan et al 2017, has a different (and better) version - see here but the licence is CC-BY-NC-ND. The picture is also not well placed - it would fit better near the section headed "Preening action" where the structure is explained. The article certainly needs a diagram to explain barbs, barbules, barbicels etc.
  • I'll see what I can find; I replaced the previous picture with this one at the recommendation of the GA reviewer. Unfortunately, these is little available online that is CC, and I'm a lousy artist. MeegsC (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Okay, I've found a fellow editor who has agreed to do some diagrams for me. It may take him a week or two though as he's busy IRL. MeegsC (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Aa77zz, what do you think about Figure 3 in this article? Shyamal found it while looking for reference material. It's got a (CC BY 4.0) license, so I can upload it to Commons if you think it would work. MeegsC (talk) 08:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
        • A great find. Fig 3 in Zhao et al is 2020 is certainly an improvement on the present picture and you should upload it. Feathers are complicated and tricky to illustrate well. Confusingly, in Fig 3 the arrow in (a) appears to be pointing in wrong (opposite) direction to that used for the view in (b).

I've looked at diagrams (rather than micrographs) in textbooks. The diagram in Gill 2007 is poor (Fig. 4.1). The diagrams in Lovette & Fitzpatrick 2016 (p. 103 Fig 4.02 A & B, not available on Google Preview) are much better - but would be impossible to reproduce. - Aa77zz (talk) 11:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Aa77zz How about this one? This is the first pass of the one Shyamal is doing. He's planning more detail in the square, and I've asked for an intermediate step between the square and the closeup. Do you think this one is preferable?

Wow - I'm impressed. And the new diagram can be used to replace the horrible File:FeatherLocking.png in the Feather article and the File:The Interlocking of feathers.png in the Glossary of bird terms article. I agree that an intermediate step would be good. It should show that the hooklets/barbicels are on the distal barbules - ie on the side of the barb away from the calamus. - Aa77zz (talk) 13:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

References

• The title of journal articles should have a consistent case. My preferred choice (and much the most common when listing articles in a list of references) is the use of sentence case. Compare ref 4 with ref 10.
• Ref 10 Cotgreave & Clayton 1994 - the link is broken. There is a spurious "1" at the end of Cotgreave. I suggest you include jstor=4535237 in the reference template.
• Ref 11 Delius 1988 - suggest you remove "(1 Neural Mechan)"
• Ref 26 Campbell & Lack 1985 - should be pp.
• Ref 55 Pepperberg - reference is to a veterinary practice website and could easily disappear. Has this info been published elsewhere?
  • Replaced with HBW ref.
• Ref 62 Delogu et al 2010 - as this is an open-access article I suggest you include doi-access=free in the template.

Bibliography

• Campbell & Lack 1985 - need to add url-access=registration
• Gill 2007 - the 3rd edition (not the 2nd) was published in 2007. The isbn is for the 3rd edition as is the IA link. Perhaps surprisingly, registration is not required. The page numbers are correct for the 3rd edition.
• Loon & Loon 2005 - link to Google is broken

More later - Aa77zz (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• The use of the plural "behaviours" sounds strange to me but from googling it appears that it is perfectly acceptable.
• "including rump, tail, belly and underwing." -> "including the rump, tail, ..."
• " More dominant birds received far ..." the change of tense here only works it you mention a study or studies.
• "the structure is missing" -> "the organ is missing"

- Aa77zz (talk) 17:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• duplicated links - In Preening action "herons" is linked twice. The other duplicated links (ostriches, albatrosses, black guillemots) occur in different sections which I consider to be OK.

- Aa77zz (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support - great work. A clearer picture showing the structure of a feather will enhance the article. - Aa77zz (talk) 11:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Aa77zz, which do you think works better — Shyamal's picture or the photo? MeegsC (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
    • I think Shyamal's diagram is easier to understand. The picture from Zhao et al may be useful in the feather article. In the square in the centre of Shyamal's diagram it is unclear which feature is labelled as barb and which feature is labelled as barbule as it is difficult to see where the lines end. Perhaps it would be easier to label the features in the round enlargement at the bottom. I notice that Shyamal has chosen not to introduce the word "ramus" for the central shaft of the barb. It is yet more jargon to confuse the reader and isn't strictly necessary. The term isn't used in the wiki feather article but the term is mentioned in Lovette & Fitzpatrick. Lucas & Stettenheim discuss the definition of the word at the bottom of page 241 here. It can probably be safely be omitted - but what do you think? - Aa77zz (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
      • I've just noticed the "ramus" is used on the glossary page when defining a barb. - Aa77zz (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Aa77zz: I have followed your suggestion above and added ramus into the diagram (but avoided introducing the plural form rami). Would it help to mention hooklets/barbicelles? Shyamal (talk) 03:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Aa77zz, apologies if I am being slow, but this looks as if it is a source review. Is that correct? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Not a formal sources review as such - but when reviewing an article I look at the type of sources used and where possible check some of them for accuracy/completeness/plagiarism etc. My preference is not to include links to google scans when access is limit/restricted as access can depend on where one lives - but on Wikipedia I believe this is considered a matter of personal taste. - Aa77zz (talk) 11:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Funk

• I'll have a look soon. At first glance, speculum is duplinked within the same paragraph. FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• "There is evidence that filoplumes, specialized feathers buried under a bird's outer covering of contour feathers, help to signal when contour feathers have been displaced" how?
  • FunkMonk, I've expanded it a little; does this help/work? MeegsC (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

All the changes look good, a bit more below. FunkMonk (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Link keratin and arboreal.
• Link feather lice.
• "preen on the wing" I wonder if the meaning of this would be lost to most layreaders. Maybe "during flight" would be safer?
  • I put "while flying". Is that okay?
• You use both ise and ize endings, should be consistent. I assume this is UK English, since you write behaviour?
• "The preen oil of several gull and tern species, including Ross's gull contains a pink colourant which does the same." Shouldn't there be a comma after "including Ross's gull"? As it appears to be a parenthetical sentence.
• "the vast majority of these involve icterids, though at least one instance of mutual grooming between a black vulture and a crested caracara has been documented." Was this in captive or wild birds? To show if it is a "natural" occurrence.
• "when done with between members of a mated pair" Seems the "with" is redundant?
• "This causes a loss of heat regulation" Link thermoregulation?

FunkMonk, how's it looking now? MeegsC (talk) 07:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support - looks nice to me, and it had already been looked over by many bird-editors prior to FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

CaptainEek

I was the GA reviewer on this one, and thought Meegs did a great job. Here is my fine toothed comb reserved for FA reviews:

• I sat and watched through the YouTube videos in the EL. I think the allopreening video is poor quality and should go. Its shaky, and doesn't really show it that well. I think the in-body video of the ducks is sufficient. Plus, it looks like the ducklings are engaging in a little bit of allopreening, and is very high quality, so I think that covers all the video bases. If you wanted to leave the owl video, you can, but I am hesitant about external video links in general. I admit my understanding of WP:YOUTUBE could probably use some enlightenment, so use your judgement here.

• I've replaced the allopreening video with better quality one. I still think it's useful, but if the general consensus is to lose them, I won't fight it.

• Should not the lead say "disease-causing organisms" instead of "disease organisms"? I know that will result in two mentions of "cause" in the sentence, the second "cause" could be changed to "lead to"
• I would not put "abnormalities" in scare quotes, given that you have the next sentence explaining it now
• " contributing as they do to insulation," remove the "as they do"
• Note on the use of emdashes vs. endashes. You have a set of emdashes. Emdashes are longer than endashes, and are used without spaces. Endashes are shorter, and are used with spaces. So either remove the spaces, or swap to endashes (I personally prefer endashes)
• "One study found that some gull species spend 15% of their daylight hours preening during the breeding season, for example, and another showed common loons spend upwards of 25% of their day preening". The "for example" breaks up the sentence awkwardly. I would try to restructure/word the sentence so it flows better.
• "For example, one study showed that the presence of the symbiotic bacteria Enterococcus faecalis in the preen oil of hoopoes inhibited the growth of the bacteria Bacillus licheniformis, a species which breaks down keratin, the main component of feathers" A very long sentence with a lot of punctuation. A solution I often employ when I have too many commas is to replace one of them with an endash. Makes it easier for the reader to keep track of the various clauses and statements.
• "microscopic crypts" crypts is not a very common word in this context. Is it accurate? If so, a link could be useful. Otherwise, maybe pits would be a better word?

• At your suggestion, I've used pits here. The source uses "crypts" and mentions that these features are unique to hoopoe eggs, but I guess "pits" is probably close enough.

• " and such contact allows" I haven't read the associated paper, but it feels like there could be evidence enough to change the "and" to an "as"

• I've changed this to "where"; is that okay?

• "louping ill virus, for example, can be" Feels like another overuse of "for example"

• I've removed all but one instance of "for example" from the article. ;)

• The video needs an Alt Text

• It has alt text already; I'm not sure why it's not displaying.

Very high quality!! Ping me when you've tackled the above :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

CaptainEek, I think I've addressed all of your concerns. MeegsC (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Nicely done! Thats a support from me! CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Support and comments from Jim

The remaining review comments above are pretty minor, and I'm happy to support this excellent article. One statement that is misleading or incorrect though; ...neighbouring black guillemots that engaged in allopreening were much less likely to fight. Since fights often lead to eggs or chicks being knocked off breeding cliffs...— Unlike Common Guillemots, Black Guillemots don't breed on cliffs, they use crevices, caves and even artificial "holes". Cornell lists a wide variety of nest sites, but they are all basically holes, not ledges Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

And your ref is actually about Common Guillemot, so it looks like an inadvertent species change... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

You're absolutely right; I just checked that ref myself, and it looks like I put that in way back in 2017. Eek! Fixed now. MeegsC (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.